States join forces against electoral college:A piecemeal approach may be the only way to kill the anachronistic institution.

By EDITORIALPublished June 5th 2006 in Los Angeles Times

A PROPOSED EXPERIMENT with majority rule has generated plenty of
naysayers who apparently think that some nations are simply too
immature to let people directly choose their own leaders. But we say
the United States is ready for real democracy.

The experiment is the National Popular Vote campaign, which intends to
undermine the Constitution's anachronistic Electoral College. If the
campaign succeeds, future presidents will take office only if they win
the popular vote nationwide.

The ingenious scheme was developed by John R. Koza, a Stanford
professor who also invented the scratch-off lottery ticket. It calls on
state legislatures to pass a measure dictating that all the electoral
votes from that state go to the winner of the national popular vote. It
goes into effect only if enough states approve it to represent a
majority of the electoral votes. In other words, if states that
represent at least 270 of the 538 electoral votes all approve the
measure, the winner of the popular vote nationwide would automatically
win the presidency. It thus renders the Electoral College moot without
eliminating it.

This kind of end run is necessary because the only way to get rid of
the Electoral College entirely is via a constitutional amendment, which
would be nearly impossible to pass. Enough small states benefit from
the current system to block an amendment. The beauty of this approach
is that each state is constitutionally allowed to allot its electoral
votes as it sees fit. The measure was approved by California's Assembly
on Tuesday and is pending in four other states; backers hope to get it
before all 50 states by January.

Anyone wondering why he should care about the Electoral College need
look no further than the 2000 election, when George W. Bush won the
presidency despite getting about half a million fewer votes than Al
Gore. If that makes conservatives think they should be thankful that
the majority doesn't always rule in the United States, they should
think again. The same thing nearly happened in reverse in 2004. If John
Kerry had picked up a mere 60,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won
— even though Bush took in 3 million more votes overall.

The Electoral College doesn't skew just election results; it skews
elections. Candidates know they don't have to campaign in states that
either clearly favor them or clearly don't; they have to focus only on
swing states. In the 2004 campaign, Bush and Kerry spent a great deal
of time brushing up on agricultural policy and other issues of vital
concern in Iowa, while ignoring matters important to people in states
such as California, Texas and New York.

Opponents argue that the current system ensures that smaller states
continue to have a say in setting national policy. But the U.S. Senate
already gives Delaware every bit as much clout as California. Any
method besides majority vote empowers some citizens at the expense of
others and makes the president beholden to minority interests.

At its inception, the United States was, well, a union of states. But
it is now one nation, and our president should be elected by the
citizens of that nation, not by its constituent states. To argue
otherwise is to say that some Americans should have more power to elect
a president than others simply because of where they live. Remember,
all men are created equal. Including Californians and New Yorkers.

Sierra Club National Popular Vote Resolution

WHEREAS, the mission of the Sierra Club is to explore, enjoy and protect the planet through grassroots participation in politics and government; and

WHEREAS, presidential candidates focus their efforts and resources only in battleground states.

WHEREAS, two-thirds of the states receive little to no attention in a competitive presidential election.

THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Sierra Club supports National Popular Vote state legislation that will elect the President of the United States by popular vote.

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Sierra Club supports election of the President of the United States by direct popular vote.